LexM.P. STATE COOP. BANK LTD., BHOPAL versus NANURAM YADAV AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
) M.P. STATE COOP. BANK LTD., BHOPAL A V. NANURAM YADAV AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 25, 2007 B [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM,JJ.] Service law: Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, C 1981-ss. l 0 and 12-Cooperative Bank-Clerk-cum-typist- Termination on the ground of illegality in selection process- Challenged on the ground that show cause notice not issued nor opportunity of hearing afforded in the enquiry by Lokayukt-Held: Termination not legal-Employees concerned were subjected to D written test, interview, execution of security bond and satisfied Staff Service Rules-Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960- . s. 55(1 )-Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Employees (Terms of, employment and Working Conditions) Rules, 1976. Public appointments-Principles to be followed-Reiterated. On 24.6.1994, the Managing Director of the appellant-Bank sent E a letter to the Cooperative Commissioner and Registrar, Cooperative Societies, M.P. requesting for filling up of at least 60 posts against 100 vacant posts of Clerks-cum-Typists. Pursuant to the said request, F Additional Registrar, by his reply dated 29.6.1994 granted permission to appoint 40 persons on ad hoc basis for six months mentioning that meanwhile the Bank would take steps to fill up the vacant posts by issuing legal advertisement and keeping in view the reservation under Government Rules and Staff Service Rules. G On 11.11.1994, permission to fill up 20 more posts was granted. Pursuant to the aforesaid sanction letters, on 31.01.1995, the Bank appointed 60 clerks-cum-typists on ad-hoc basis for a period of six 307 H 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 10 S.C.R. A months. After appointment, two employees left the services of the Bank. After expiry of six months, as envisaged under Rule 22( a) of the Staff ·~ - Service Rules, 1976,atl the appointed persons appeared in the written examination and were successful. Those persons appeared for an interview before the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee, B after satisfying itself, recommended their names for appointment on regular, basis. AU the.·appointed persons were asked by the· Bank to furnish Security Bond for a period of three years with a deposit of Rs.5,000/-. All the appointees complied with the said condition. While they are discharging their duties, taking into consideration their "' - C perfonnanceetc., the appointing authority, under Rule 14(b), confirmed their services on the post of Clerks-cum.:..typists on'30!10.1996. . . .On 27.10.1997, without·any notice or assigning any reason, the Managing Director of the Bank issued termination order under.Rule D 61 of the Rules. Aggrieved by those orders, the affected persons filed writ petition before the High Court claiming that the termination order was issued by the Bank on the basis of the direction dated 01.08.1997 issued by the'Commissioner. Cooperatives-cum"-Registrar,- to· the Managing Director of the Bank on the foundation that the Lokayukt E had found 58 clerks-cum-typists were illegally appointed on the post, hence it was imperative to terminate their services taking aid of Rule 61 of the Staff Service Rules. High Court allowed the writ petition. The Bank and the employees both filed appeals before this ·court. Allowing the ~ppeal of.enwloyees and di~posing of the Bank's F appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It is clear that in the matter of public appointments, the following principles·are to be followed: (1) .The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under·the·Rules/ G Government. Circulars and without advertisement or.inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution oflndia. (2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment. (3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum H educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly j M.P. STATE COOP. BANK LTD., BHOPAL v. NANURAM 309 YADAV illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to A regularization. (4) Those who come by back door should go through that door. (5) No regularization is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Art.162 of the Constitution if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory Rules. (6) The Court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy. (7) I
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.